9 ms·

And given that a majority of "Ex-Google" engineers are males, where does that leave a woman (or any under-represented group) founder? She is not asking for mon

by avilay 6y ago

And given that a majority of "Ex-Google" engineers are males, where does that leave a woman (or any under-represented group) founder? She is not asking for money "just because" she is a woman. She is asking for a fair chance. And we need to give folks from under-represented communities a more than fair chance to combat inherent selection bias.

s4n1ty 6y ago
Perhaps the reason a majority of engineers are male is that men are more likely to be interested in engineering. This is a very insightful paper exploring the subject, written by a Google engineer: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- anotherfounder 6y ago
  sigh, here we go again..
- zbentley 6y ago
  Not only has that particular piece been debunked, shredded, put back together, debunked, shredded again, and (metaphorically) left in the dumpster, but it's totally irrelevant to this thread. Interest in running a company or technology is not at issue. You have a bunch of founders in this thread with demonstrable (as in: they have founded companies) interest in doing these things, and they're having trouble getting over the line because of bias. Perhaps the VCs they pitched to read the same paper, and jumped to the same conclusions you did. If so, that's super fucked up.
  - s4n1ty 6y ago
    > Not only has that particular piece been debunked, shredded, put back together, debunked, shredded again, and (metaphorically) left in the dumpster Not at all. Damore's memo was reasonable, accurate, and the criticism of it has been, like yours, entirely without substance.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Damore's memo was reasonable, accurate, and the criticism to it has been, like yours, entirely without substance. The Wikipedia article on Damore's memo lists a number of substantive criticisms[0]. For convenience, I'll list them here: This Vox article[1] gives a brief background of Damore's argument from biological essentialism. It references the general consensus that the premise (that cultural and sociological gender roles result from innate and immutable differences in gender biology and neurology) has been discredited[2,3], as well as a Stanford research paper[4] which concludes “Through a rather constructivist approach most studies show that no scientific experiment has proved the existence of systematic and/or significant biological sex differences in most cognitive functions.” This BBC article[5] mentions a criticism by a cognitive scientist, This Intelligencer article[6] lists numerous criticisms and rebuttals by scientists, referencing this Quora article by an evolutionary scientist[7], and another criticism from studies of gender and STEM[8]. Now, that's as many as I've been willing to list because I'm now thoroughly bored of hunting down sources, but there are many others I haven't listed if you want to do the research yourself. Now granted, wikipedia also lists a number of counter-criticisms, but that alone doesn't render the criticism invalid, it merely demonstrates the existence of a controversy. I'm leaving this comment here for future reference, and referring to it every time I notice someone bringing up the myth that Damore's memo is based on rock-solid, unassailable science, or that no "substantive" criticisms have or can been made. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber#On_the_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... [1]https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fire... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/12/science-hasnt-proved-that-women-go-for-bad-boys https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-weapon-choice-women-google-manifesto-gender-difference-eugenics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silico... [4]http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/TR3_Stereotypes.pdf http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/TR3_Stereotyp... [5]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40865261 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40865261 [6]https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argu... [7]https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... [8]https://www.vox.com/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore https://www.vox.com/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-...
- dang 6y ago
  You did so much damage in this thread, and this comment is so ridiculously off topic, that I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
m0zg 6y ago
> She is not asking for money "just because" she is a woman. That's why I asked to see the track record. You won't get anywhere in this business without a track record. Moreover, if you do have a track record being a woman is an advantage these days, not a disadvantage. There are a lot of VCs chomping at the bit to invest into women- and minority-led startups. But they won't give you money if they don't have some degree of certainty that you can do what you're promising to do.
- triceratops 6y ago
  https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-champing/ https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-champ...
- jjeaff 6y ago
  If they were champing at the bit, you'd think they would at the very least respond to all pitches from female founders.
anotherfounder 6y ago
thank you!
thereisnospork 6y ago
> And given that a majority of "Ex-Google" engineers are males, where does that leave a woman (or any under-represented group) founder? It leaves them as a statistical someone with an objectively poor resume. If you want more women founded companies, you need more women engineers. If you want more women engineers, you need more women cs majors. If you want more women cs majors, you need more women interested in and excelling at math in high school. It may not be 'fair' that the statistical woman has a 'worse' resume, nor is it 'fair' that the statistical rich kid has a 'better' one, but its asinine to address fairness at the narrow end of the funnel.
- rob2312 6y ago
  So, just leaving the issue unsolved for probably around 20 years or so and letting under-represented groups play catch-up. There are a lot more meaningful and effective actions that can be implemented now, which would correct things in a shorter length of time. I do think that the 'pipeline' is the fundamental way to fix the issue -- but I think that the best way of creating that interest is to present those under-represented groups in our society now, rather than later.
pluto9 6y ago
> She is asking for a fair chance. Where is the evidence that she didn't get one? A fair chance is not a guarantee of funding.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  Reading her email and responding, or downloading the app, would be some fair chances. There’s plenty of evidence in the article linked at the top of this page that that did not happen. Take a look.
  - pluto9 6y ago
    > Take a look. It baffles me that people constantly make this low-effort "read the article" remark as if (A) it's not explicitly against the rules here, and (B) it's impossible for two people to read the same article and draw different conclusions from it. But I digress. I can put myself in the shoes of a VC for a second and know that based on a quick glance at the app's website and app store page, I wouldn't invest in it either. It's unoriginal, unlikely to be profitable, and the reviews are suspicious at best. No need to download it to see that. Not reading or responding isn't unfair. VCs get inundated with proposals like hers. I'm a white guy who used to do freelance work. I've sent out hundreds of personalized cold emails to businesses looking for work, and got responses to maybe 5 of them, all of which were negative or "we'll keep your information on file". Maybe my sales pitch sucks. Maybe my portfolio sucks. Or maybe they just weren't interested in what I was offering. Maybe that's the case for her, too. Where's the evidence that either of us were treated unfairly? I am not entitled to anyone's time or money and neither is she. Have we reached the point where not responding to a cold email is an act of bigotry? I myself get inundated with messages from recruiters. I respond only to the tiny fraction that are actually interesting and relevant to my skillset. It never even occurred to me to respond or not based on the gender or race of the recruiter. Does that make me a bigot?
    - PascLeRasc 6y ago
      When you (the VC) say you want to help Black founders, and then do not respond to a Black founder while responding to a non-Black founder for the same product, then yeah, that is bigotry.

by avilay 6y ago

s4n1ty 6y ago

Perhaps the reason a majority of engineers are male is that men are more likely to be interested in engineering. This is a very insightful paper exploring the subject, written by a Google engineer: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

anotherfounder 6y ago
sigh, here we go again..
zbentley 6y ago
Not only has that particular piece been debunked, shredded, put back together, debunked, shredded again, and (metaphorically) left in the dumpster, but it's totally irrelevant to this thread. Interest in running a company or technology is not at issue. You have a bunch of founders in this thread with demonstrable (as in: they have founded companies) interest in doing these things, and they're having trouble getting over the line because of bias. Perhaps the VCs they pitched to read the same paper, and jumped to the same conclusions you did. If so, that's super fucked up.
- s4n1ty 6y ago
  > Not only has that particular piece been debunked, shredded, put back together, debunked, shredded again, and (metaphorically) left in the dumpster Not at all. Damore's memo was reasonable, accurate, and the criticism of it has been, like yours, entirely without substance.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Damore's memo was reasonable, accurate, and the criticism to it has been, like yours, entirely without substance. The Wikipedia article on Damore's memo lists a number of substantive criticisms[0]. For convenience, I'll list them here: This Vox article[1] gives a brief background of Damore's argument from biological essentialism. It references the general consensus that the premise (that cultural and sociological gender roles result from innate and immutable differences in gender biology and neurology) has been discredited[2,3], as well as a Stanford research paper[4] which concludes “Through a rather constructivist approach most studies show that no scientific experiment has proved the existence of systematic and/or significant biological sex differences in most cognitive functions.” This BBC article[5] mentions a criticism by a cognitive scientist, This Intelligencer article[6] lists numerous criticisms and rebuttals by scientists, referencing this Quora article by an evolutionary scientist[7], and another criticism from studies of gender and STEM[8]. Now, that's as many as I've been willing to list because I'm now thoroughly bored of hunting down sources, but there are many others I haven't listed if you want to do the research yourself. Now granted, wikipedia also lists a number of counter-criticisms, but that alone doesn't render the criticism invalid, it merely demonstrates the existence of a controversy. I'm leaving this comment here for future reference, and referring to it every time I notice someone bringing up the myth that Damore's memo is based on rock-solid, unassailable science, or that no "substantive" criticisms have or can been made. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber#On_the_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... [1]https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fire... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/12/science-hasnt-proved-that-women-go-for-bad-boys https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-weapon-choice-women-google-manifesto-gender-difference-eugenics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silico... [4]http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/TR3_Stereotypes.pdf http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/TR3_Stereotyp... [5]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40865261 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40865261 [6]https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argu... [7]https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... [8]https://www.vox.com/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore https://www.vox.com/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-...
dang 6y ago
You did so much damage in this thread, and this comment is so ridiculously off topic, that I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

m0zg 6y ago

> She is not asking for money "just because" she is a woman. That's why I asked to see the track record. You won't get anywhere in this business without a track record. Moreover, if you do have a track record being a woman is an advantage these days, not a disadvantage. There are a lot of VCs chomping at the bit to invest into women- and minority-led startups. But they won't give you money if they don't have some degree of certainty that you can do what you're promising to do.

triceratops 6y ago
https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-champing/ https://www.portablepress.com/blog/2014/04/chomping-vs-champ...
jjeaff 6y ago
If they were champing at the bit, you'd think they would at the very least respond to all pitches from female founders.

anotherfounder 6y ago

thank you!

thereisnospork 6y ago

> And given that a majority of "Ex-Google" engineers are males, where does that leave a woman (or any under-represented group) founder? It leaves them as a statistical someone with an objectively poor resume. If you want more women founded companies, you need more women engineers. If you want more women engineers, you need more women cs majors. If you want more women cs majors, you need more women interested in and excelling at math in high school. It may not be 'fair' that the statistical woman has a 'worse' resume, nor is it 'fair' that the statistical rich kid has a 'better' one, but its asinine to address fairness at the narrow end of the funnel.

rob2312 6y ago
So, just leaving the issue unsolved for probably around 20 years or so and letting under-represented groups play catch-up. There are a lot more meaningful and effective actions that can be implemented now, which would correct things in a shorter length of time. I do think that the 'pipeline' is the fundamental way to fix the issue -- but I think that the best way of creating that interest is to present those under-represented groups in our society now, rather than later.

pluto9 6y ago

> She is asking for a fair chance. Where is the evidence that she didn't get one? A fair chance is not a guarantee of funding.

PascLeRasc 6y ago
Reading her email and responding, or downloading the app, would be some fair chances. There’s plenty of evidence in the article linked at the top of this page that that did not happen. Take a look.
- pluto9 6y ago
  > Take a look. It baffles me that people constantly make this low-effort "read the article" remark as if (A) it's not explicitly against the rules here, and (B) it's impossible for two people to read the same article and draw different conclusions from it. But I digress. I can put myself in the shoes of a VC for a second and know that based on a quick glance at the app's website and app store page, I wouldn't invest in it either. It's unoriginal, unlikely to be profitable, and the reviews are suspicious at best. No need to download it to see that. Not reading or responding isn't unfair. VCs get inundated with proposals like hers. I'm a white guy who used to do freelance work. I've sent out hundreds of personalized cold emails to businesses looking for work, and got responses to maybe 5 of them, all of which were negative or "we'll keep your information on file". Maybe my sales pitch sucks. Maybe my portfolio sucks. Or maybe they just weren't interested in what I was offering. Maybe that's the case for her, too. Where's the evidence that either of us were treated unfairly? I am not entitled to anyone's time or money and neither is she. Have we reached the point where not responding to a cold email is an act of bigotry? I myself get inundated with messages from recruiters. I respond only to the tiny fraction that are actually interesting and relevant to my skillset. It never even occurred to me to respond or not based on the gender or race of the recruiter. Does that make me a bigot?
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    When you (the VC) say you want to help Black founders, and then do not respond to a Black founder while responding to a non-Black founder for the same product, then yeah, that is bigotry.